Is Aggressive Society Good?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Translation of original post:

“Hey, I really, really want to rehash the basic principles of my fave new ideology for, like, the thousandth time even though I rehash the basic principles of my fave new ideology in, like every thread, no matter the thread’s topic.”

[/quote]

This.

OP- Shit don’t work. Get over it. Move on. [/quote]

Thank you for your opinion…and showing the rest of us your argumentative capabilities.

Move along, lightweight.

22

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

I am not offering any choice.

I am saying nonaggression always results in a more prosperous society than when aggression is used.

It is logically true.

Accept it and move on. Or don’t. I don’t care.[/quote]

Then why are you so annoyingly desperate to have a discussion on it if it’s “true”, “we should just accept it move on”, and you “don’t care”?

23

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Aggression is the initiation of violence, coercion or theft.

Self defense is not aggression.

Reclaiming rightful property is not aggressive.

I agree that self defense is necessary.

I disagree that aggression is a necessary component of civilization.[/quote]
Except for the truly imbecilic post you had a couple years ago about how military capability would “show up”(that IS in quotes) when needed, without investment, R&D or training, this is the most self contradictory synaptically challenged post I think I’ve ever read from you. I continue to maintain that you are a passably intelligent guy who is inexplicably addicted to indefensible ideologies thus limiting yourself to unbridled jackassery like this.

24

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

I am not offering any choice.

I am saying nonaggression always results in a more prosperous society than when aggression is used.

It is logically true.
[/quote]

And yet you have never logically proven it to be true.

So please do so before blabbering.

Start with your assumptions and axioms and then prove within that framework that nonaggression always results in a more prosperous society.

I happen to have a firm grounding in logic, as I’m sure many other posters here have as well, and so I’m excited to see your proof.

25

Some guy a few months back(he was European…not sure which country) started all of this anarchist stuff and posted a whole bunch of videos outlining his philosophy. One of them was about modern policing and essentially said that the police are solely the creation of the government to maintain its own power, giving no credit to the role of security in a free state. He used as an example what he called “the mild west” and spouted off about how peaceful the American West was without policing. I immediately thought of Deadwood, SD and the 500 murders they had a year for some time when the city population was around 10,000(according to the historical piece on one of the TV show DVDs.) Ultimately, they began “hiring” law enforcement to combat this, presumably with some aggression.

What is my point you might ask?

Well that little example I gave helped me to pretty much write off these anarcho-libertarian types as believers in fairy tales who would bend the truth to suit their desired world view.

26

I thought deeply about this while lifting weights this evening (it’s true), and I offer this in defense of the Aggressive Society.

-Person A and Person B live next to each other. They discuss comparative advantage and agree to trade with one another.

-Person A works 40 hours a week for 4 weeks and produces $160,000 worth of goods. Person B trains with weights and jiu-jitsu 10 hours a week for 4 weeks and produces $0 worth of goods.

-Person B shows up at Person A’s door at the end of the month and beats the living hell out of Person A and takes $160,000 worth of goods.

-Person A required 160 hours to acquire $160,000 worth of goods.

-Person B required 40 hours to acquire $160,000 worth of goods (and the added dividends of being buff, which attracts the ladies)

-Person B, through naked aggression, acquired the same wealth as Person A with less work. That, my friends, is prosperity.

An anarcho-libertarian idiot (but I repeat myself) would cry “but your aggression has destroyed any ability to trade in the future because others won’t trade with you and therefore you are less prosperous!” - to which I would note:

-Person C sees Person B beat the living hell out of Person A and says “hey! I don’t think I want to trade with you, you aggressively aggressive aggressor!”

-Person B replies “no, you see, I was rightfully reclaiming my property from Person A, who had stolen it from me.” [to the slow, Person B is actually lying]

-Person C says in response “oh, well, in that case, your beating the hell out of Person A was completely justified. I have no reason to believe that isn’t true. Hey, you want to do some trading?”

-Person B gleefully responds “sounds great, see you in a month”.

27

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
No, aggressive society is the antithesis of a prosperous society.

I contend that society based on aggression was the archetype of all primitive cultures. These were dark times for mankind and humanity in general. This is the same archetype that all governments must necessarily follow or else they cannot really govern.

It was not until the Enlightenment and the age of reason that man was able to discover the laws of economics and how they shape civilization and could therefore assert the benefit of unhampered free trade.

The major implication of the laws of economics is that it is not government aggression that safeguards mankind but rather that mankind can only be safeguarded when individuals embrace free trade and adhere to the principle of nonaggression.

An understanding of economics reveals the notion that nonaggressive society ultimately must bring about peace, freedom, and prosperity for the majority of people.[/quote]

let see if I can follow your logic. you say that when man learns the laws of economics and free trade then we are capable to create an non-aggressive society, but you say they found this laws in the age of enlightenment. and if I remember my history correct, there have been wars after and during that age. what about “the seven years war” or the “american revolution”. they happened during this age. And just after you had the “napolionic wars”. So to me it seems that you are out on thin ice on this on liftic. Wich are a shame, because a non-aggressive society deserves a good pro-argument.

I would say that from a moral point of wiew, an aggressive society is bad or inhuman, but most nations, empires trough out history have been both aggressive and prosperous. You have to go to the stoneages to find direct non-aggressive societys.

28

[quote]florelius wrote:
let see if I can follow your logic. you say that when man learns the laws of economics and free trade then we are capable to create an non-aggressive society, but you say they found this laws in the age of enlightenment. and if I remember my history correct, there have been wars after and during that age. what about “the seven years war” or the “american revolution”. they happened during this age. And just after you had the “napolionic wars”. So to me it seems that you are out on thin ice on this on liftic. Wich are a shame, because a non-aggressive society deserves a good pro-argument.[/quote]

Just because man discovers a new idea does not mean he understands all that that idea entails nor does it mean the rest of humanity is ready to accept those implications. That always takes time. Think of the idea of slavery. It took many centuries to be completely irradiated and still our ideas of slavery change. I believe slavery is still alive and kicking if we expand our understanding to what it really means to be a slave.

I am not saying there cannot be some prosperity with aggression I am saying there would be more prosperity without. And anyway it is only the aggressors whom prosper.[quote]

I would say that from a moral point of wiew, an aggressive society is bad or inhuman, but most nations, empires trough out history have been both aggressive and prosperous. You have to go to the stoneages to find direct non-aggressive societys.
[/quote]

No, aggression has been the primary quality organizing society for many a millennia, quite true, but is it a necessary and good part of society? That’s the part I want answered.

The fellows here are quite convinced that violence works. That scares me because I prefer peace and trade.

All I am suggesting is that the possibility of peace is not as fantastical as everyone might imagine it is. And anyway it is more interesting to me to ponder the good things that might come about when people are truly free – i.e., of aggressive society.

29

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
I thought deeply about this while lifting weights this evening (it’s true), and I offer this in defense of the Aggressive Society.

-Person A and Person B live next to each other. They discuss comparative advantage and agree to trade with one another.

-Person A works 40 hours a week for 4 weeks and produces $160,000 worth of goods. Person B trains with weights and jiu-jitsu 10 hours a week for 4 weeks and produces $0 worth of goods.

-Person B shows up at Person A’s door at the end of the month and beats the living hell out of Person A and takes $160,000 worth of goods.

-Person A required 160 hours to acquire $160,000 worth of goods.

-Person B required 40 hours to acquire $160,000 worth of goods (and the added dividends of being buff, which attracts the ladies)

-Person B, through naked aggression, acquired the same wealth as Person A with less work. That, my friends, is prosperity.

An anarcho-libertarian idiot (but I repeat myself) would cry “but your aggression has destroyed any ability to trade in the future because others won’t trade with you and therefore you are less prosperous!” - to which I would note:

-Person C sees Person B beat the living hell out of Person A and says “hey! I don’t think I want to trade with you, you aggressively aggressive aggressor!”

-Person B replies “no, you see, I was rightfully reclaiming my property from Person A, who had stolen it from me.” [to the slow, Person B is actually lying]

-Person C says in response “oh, well, in that case, your beating the hell out of Person A was completely justified. I have no reason to believe that isn’t true. Hey, you want to do some trading?”

-Person B gleefully responds “sounds great, see you in a month”.[/quote]

So I guess in your eyes the all knowing and loving government swoops in a makes everything all better?

End of discussion.

30

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
<<< So I guess in your eyes the all knowing and loving government swoops in a makes everything all better?

End of discussion.
[/quote]
Ya know, there’s a few of you guys around here I would almost pay money to see defend an actually defensible position for two reasons. One, I think you would be strong allies and two I would no longer have to be tormented with watching your potential swirl down the drain in posts like this one.

In short yes. The community agrees on an enforced universally applicable framework for public practice and behavior. The higher and more efficient the framework, the more stable and prosperous the society. Of course there is a library full of additional details that profoundly effect this, along with a whole host of unavoidable human pitfalls, but for the sake of addressing the seemingly incurable all or nothing mental prison you insist on living in, this is the nut of the matter.

I realize you’ve been confronted with this same concept by folks like Thunderbolt who are more capable than I 5000 times already, but one can hold out hope.

31

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

So I guess in your eyes the all knowing and loving government swoops in a makes everything all better?

End of discussion.[/quote]

Nope, I merely gave you a scenario in your awesome anarchic Utopia where someone practicing aggression can get rich fast and keep getting rich because they are so darn good at aggression.

And? You don’t have a response to my scenario? Forget government - we don’t have one in your Happy Town. What’s your answer, “heavyweight”?

32

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
<<< Nope, I merely gave you a scenario in your awesome anarchic Utopia where someone practicing aggression can get rich fast and keep getting rich because they are so darn good at aggression. >>>[/quote]
Yeah, but you forgot that in Liftyland the aggressive reclamation of that gain, ill gotten through aggression is itself non aggressive. So he’s covered. I think.

33

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
I thought deeply about this while lifting weights this evening (it’s true),

[/quote]

You should have been concentrating on your weight training. The mind-muscle connection is important!

34

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

No, aggression has been the primary quality organizing society for many a millennia, quite true, but is it a necessary and good part of society? That’s the part I want answered.

The fellows here are quite convinced that violence works. That scares me because I prefer peace and trade.
[/quote]

Not that I don’t admire your idealism… but it’s not a question of whether violence works or aggression is necessary. They are innate traits that cannot be changed- getting rid of aggression would be like getting rid of love, of sorrow, of empathy… it’s quite impossible to rid humans of these things.

So what’s the point of arguing something that cannot be changed?

35

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

No, aggression has been the primary quality organizing society for many a millennia, quite true, but is it a necessary and good part of society? That’s the part I want answered.

The fellows here are quite convinced that violence works. That scares me because I prefer peace and trade.
[/quote]

Not that I don’t admire your idealism… but it’s not a question of whether violence works or aggression is necessary. They are innate traits that cannot be changed- getting rid of aggression would be like getting rid of love, of sorrow, of empathy… it’s quite impossible to rid humans of these things.

So what’s the point of arguing something that cannot be changed?[/quote]

FI hits it out of the park. Aggressive societies can be prosperous, they can also only get disastrous returns for their actions. I find it hard to distinguish the interplay of the basic supposition. Peaceful societies can be prosperous, but they too can fail. I think there are too many other facets of the situation to focus on one single trait as bearing the greatest impact on the economics of a society.

I would love a world that had all peaceful societies, but as FI rightly stated “it’s quite impossible to rid humans of these things”

somebody needs to check on hell - FI and I have agreed on several subjects in the past couple of weeks . . .

36

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
<<< FI hits it out of the park. Aggressive societies can be prosperous, they can also only get disastrous returns for their actions. I find it hard to distinguish the interplay of the basic supposition. Peaceful societies can be prosperous, but they too can fail. I think there are too many other facets of the situation to focus on one single trait as bearing the greatest impact on the economics of a society.

I would love a world that had all peaceful societies, but as FI rightly stated “it’s quite impossible to rid humans of these things”

somebody needs to check on hell - FI and I have agreed on several subjects in the past couple of weeks . . .[/quote]

I’m holding out hope that one day he’ll even understand why he’s right. That’s actually not a sarcastic statement.

37

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

I’m holding out hope that one day he’ll even understand why he’s right. That’s actually not a sarcastic statement.[/quote]

As wittingly condescending as you choose to be, I’m quite aware of why I hold the positions I hold on the issues I discuss. Thanks.

38

I might have just missed it, but is the premise here that there would just be no physical aggression in the world? Because isn’t competition in a market based on aggression too? Wanting more market share to make more money, for example, seems innately aggressive because you’d have to force somebody else out who would then make less.

Surely a society free of aggression in any perception of the word would be completely stagnant?

39

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

I’m holding out hope that one day he’ll even understand why he’s right. That’s actually not a sarcastic statement.[/quote]

As wittingly condescending as you choose to be, I’m quite aware of why I hold the positions I hold on the issues I discuss. Thanks.[/quote]
I intended no condescension whatsoever. None. Or wit for that matter. The observations you made in the quoted post are in fact absolutely correct as far as they go. Like I said above. I’m not being sarcastic.

40

In related recent news, “Chimpanzees wage war, mercilessly killing members of neighboring groups to expand their own territory, researchers reported Monday.”

Humans certainly aren’t chimps, and we have the gift of reason to grow past the state of nature, but chimpanzees clearly buy into my “lift weights/learn ju-jitsu” plan for prosperity.